Z/ 




T 825 
.LI N8 
Copy 1 



CENTENNIAL EXPOSITION. 



SPEECH 



OP 



./'■ 



HOE THOMAS M. NORWOOD, 



OF G^EORG-I^, 



IN THE 



SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 

FEBEUARY 10, 1876. 



N^- 1876. 



^ '■ /r^ 



SPEECH 



HON. THOMAS M. NORWOOD 



The Senate having under consideration the bill (H. R. No. 514) relating to the 
t^entennial celebration of American Independence — 

Mr. NORWOOD said : 

Mr. President : We read in an eastern story of an orphan princess 
wlio, hearing and believing that in a distant land and on the summit 
of a lofty mountain there were precious treasures, commissioned a 
1t)rother to make the journey in order to obtain them for her. He went, 
and arriving at the base of the mountain, met an aged man who told 
him that in ascending he would hear threats of violence, and should he 
heed them and look back he would turn to stone and fall on the moun- 
tain-side. He began to ascend, and hearing the predicted threats, he 
became alarmed, looked back, and turned to stone. Another brother 
made the attempt, and not heeding the counsel given, he met the same 
fate. The prmcess then undertook the perilous journey, and when 
told of the dangers, she stopped her ears, fixed her eyes on the summit 
turned neither to the right nor the left, ascended to the top, and se- 
cured the treasures. 

Five years ago the State of Georgia, queenly even in her desolation, 
believing that in the future upon the lofty plain of constitutional jus- 
tice and equality were the treasures of peace and prosperity in reserve 
for her, commissioned one of her humblest sons to assist in the endeavor 
to secure those blessings for her. He came, and before entering upon 
the labor assigned to him he was told of the taunts and sneers and 
jeers he would hear around him ; but at the outset he resolved that, 
fixing his eye upon the blessings which his mother so much needed 
and desired, he would neither look to the right nor to the left, but 
press onward and upward in the endeavor to secure them. How far 
that resolution has been kept he leaves to the judgment of his brother 
Senators, republicans and democrats, and to the records of this Senate. 
He has discussed party politics freely and boldly, but has never ut- 
tered a word in this Chamber that was sectional in its character or 
vcalculated to wound the honor or -the pride of any man from any sec- 
tion of this Union. 

But why this reference, M, may be asked. Because, sir, since the 



discussion on this amnesty "bill, in Congress, on the streets, in the 
press, it has been said that the vote of a southern man upon this ques- 
tion was to be regarded as a test of his patriotism. Sir, if to vote 
away millions of money upon a power which some of us believe to be 
unconstitutional, and which many of us believe to be at the best 
doubtful, and which others still believe to be inexpedient and unwise, 
be the test of patriotism, I am free to say that I do not love my coun- 
try. These remarks, again, are suggested by the words which fell 
from the lips of a Senator in discussing this question on yesterday. 
He said, if I be not mistaken, that it was " indecent and mean " not 
to make this appropriation. As a matter of course, those who vote 
against the bill must be indecent and mean. 

Mr. MORTON. With the Senator's permission — 

Mr. NORWOOD. Certainly. 

Mr. MORTON. I presume the Senator refers to the remark I made 
yesterday. I believe I used the word " decency," but I used it as I 
intended to, if I was not so understood, as to the attitude the nation 
would occupy if it should refuse to make an appropriation to pay the 
expenses of this Centennial after having invited the nations of the 
world to come here. I did not intend to reflect upon the motives of 
any Senator. I believe I have never done such a thing in the Senate. 
I think I applied the word "mean" perhaps to an amendment that 
had been offered to the bill requiring the United States first to be 
repaid in preference to the stockholders or those who had subscribed 
stock. I did not think well of that amendment ; but I certainly had 
no purpose to reflect upon the motives of any Senator whatever. I 
merely intended to indicate what would be the position of the nation 
in my opinion if, after having invited the nations of the world to 
come here, it should refuse to contribute to the expenses of the Cen- 
tennial. 

Mr. NORWOOD. With great pleasure I accept the explanation of 
the Senator, and therefore shall omit what I intended to say on that 
subject. I know the words were used by him, and I thought, in 
application to those who oppose this bill. I hope, therefore, that this 
question of patriotism, of a man being patriotic or unpatriotic ac- 
cording to the views he may entertain on this question or the vote 
that he may cast, will no longer be heard in this Chamber or else- 
where. 

Premising that much, I desire now to consider this question calmly^ 
dispassionately, and in the light of law and of reason. The first thing 
to be considered is the character of the bill. This is a bill to appro- 
priate the sum of $1,500,000 to complete the centennial buildings in 
the city of Philadelphia. By the act of June 1, 1872, the Centennial 
Commission is declared to be — 

A body politic and corporate in law, with power to do such acts, and enter into 
such obligations, as may be promotive of the purposes for which such commissioa 



was established. Its title shall be the United States Centennial Commission. It 
shall have a common and corporate seal, and possess all the rights incident to cor- 
porate existence. 

Who, then, is to be the beneficiary of this fund ? It is the centen- 
nial board of finance, which is a private corporation. 

I wish to divest this question of the idea that the people are inter- 
ested in it. It is all a mistake. The people have no interest in a dol- 
lar of this million five hundred thousand dollars, except to keep it 
in the Treasury. It is to be used for the erection of buildings that 
belong to a private corporation. This fact is not questioned by any 
friend of this bill. 

Then, second, what is the purpose of the fund ? Why, sir, it is to 
be used in a private speculation. To make this clear, let us look at 
the act just referred to. Section 10 is as follows : 

Sec. 10. That as soon as practicable after the said exhibition shall have been 
closed it shall be the duty of said corporation to convert its property into cash, and, 
after the payment of all its liabilities, to divide its remaining assets among its stock- 
holders pro rata, in full satisfaction and discharge of its capital stock. 

Thus we see that this appropriation is not only for a private corpo- 
ration, but it is for the exclusive pecuniary benefit of the stockholders 
in that corporation. They can apply the fund as they see fit. If they 
erect buildings they will belong to that corporation, and the proceeds 
of sale, if the buildings should be sold, will go to the stockholders. 

The delusion is cherished by many that this money is to be appro- 
priated to celebrate the Declaration of Independence, while others 
know it is for the exhibition of the arts and manufactures. Whether 
it be for either, or whether it be for both, in my judgment, after ma- 
ture consideration, the appropriation finds no warrant in the Consti- 
tution. Has Congress the power, and this is the naked question, 
divested of all garniture, to appropriate money to be used by a pri- 
vate corporation in a private speculation for its own benefit ? That 
is the whole question, and I now come to a consideration of the con- 
stitutional view of it. It is not pretended by any friend of this 
measure that there is any direct grant of power in the Constitution 
authorizing this appropriation. There is-not a clause in the Consti- 
tution to which any friend has pointed as containing a direct power 
to appropriate money either for a celebration or for the exhibition 
of the arts and sciences. Consequently the only way in which the 
power can be arrived at is by construction; and it is a singular fact 
that, in looking for the power upon which to support this bill, there 
are but few of its friends who agree. It is sought by some in the first 
clause of section 8 of article 1. It is sought by others in the power 
to regulate commerce. It is sought by others in the preamble to the 
Constitution. It is. sought by others still in the powers that relate 
to foreign countries, and others find it in the treaty-making power. 



To say the least of it, that must be an exceedingly doubtful power of 
Congress which the friends of a measure have to fish for in six or 
eight different clauses of the Constitution. 

As to the fi: st clause of section 8, article 1, of the Constitution, I 
say that the history of that clause shows that no such power is given 
by it. That clause when first introduced in the convention was in 
the following words. I quote from the Madis on Papers, page 1485 : 

September 4 * * * Mr. Brearly, from the committee of eleven, made a f urtlier 
partial report, as follows ; 

The committee of eleven, &c. 

Eeported the clause in these words : • 

The legislature shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and. 
excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare 
of the United States. 

It will be observed in that clause, the qualifying clause, which is 
in the Constitution, to wit, that " duties, &c., shall be uniform," is 
omitted ; and that after the word " excises" the word " to " comes as 
a continuation of the sentence, being only separated from the word 
" excises " by a comma, just as in the clause we are now construing. 
But when we come to look at the grammatical construction of that 
clause, we find indubitable evidence impressed upon it by the educa- 
tion and the common sense of those who framed it that they never 
intended that the clause which is relied upon, to wit, "to pay the debts 
and provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the 
United States," should give a substantive and a separate power to Con- 
gress. Looking at the grammatical construction, we fijid the follow- 
ing reasons for the meaning I claim the framers of the Constitution 
had in mind : 

First. That in section 8 of article 1 of the Constitution there are- 
eighteen separate paragraphs. 

Second. Each of these paragraphs contains a separate and distinct 
grant of power- 
Third. Each paragraph thus containing a distinct grant of power 
begins with a capital letter, as though it were a complete and dis- 
tinct sentence. And in the original draught of these several powers 
submitted to the convention, each paragraph was a complete sen- 
tence, because it was terminated by a period. 

Fourth. Each paragraph as at present punctuated terminates with 
a semicolon. 

Fifth. The first semicolon in the first paragraph (the one under 
consideration) is placed, not after the word "excises," but after the 
words " United States." 

Sixth. The words in the first paragraph which are a limitation on 
the power to lay and collect taxes come after the portion of the para- 
graph which it is claimed gives a distinct and substantive grant of 



power, to wit, the words " to pay the debts and provide for the com- 
mon defense and general welfare of the United States." Had the 
words to " provide for the common defense and general welfare " been 
intended to give a substantive power, they would not have been 
placed hetween the words giving the power to collect taxes and the 
words which qualify that power by prescribing the manner'in which 
taxes shall be levied. 

A^ain, the reading which makes the expression, "to pay the debts 
and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United 
States" a substantive power is a cruel criticism on the common sense 
of the framers of that matchless piece of mental mechanism ; for it 
makes them declare solemnly that, as a separate power. Congress shall 
have the right " to pay the delts of the United States." For, if the 
words relied on, to wit, "to pay the debts and provide for the com- 
mon defense and general welfare of the United States " give a sub- 
stantive grant, they include three distinct grants of power. The first 
is, " to pay the debts," the second, " to provide for the common de- 
fense," and the third, "to provide for the general welfare of the 
United States." The convention had already provided that all leg- 
islative powers granted in the Constitution should be exercised by 
Congress and that money should be raised by taxes imposed by Con- 
gress ; and yet we are told that those wise men intended to provide 
further that, with all legislative power under its control and with the 
money in hand collected by taxation, Congress should have the power 
to pay the debts of the United States. What other power in the Govern- 
ment did those sages suppose would pay the public debts that made 
it necessary, in their solemn judgment, to grant that power to Con- 
gress as a power distinct and separate from the power to collect taxes? 
No, sir, these words were intended only to specify the purposes for 
which the power to collect taxes was given and that the money thus 
raised was to be used only in paying the debts and for the common 
defense, (as by supporting the Army and Navy,) and for the general 
welfare as pointed out in the various clauses which follow in section 
8, For, to regulate commerce, to establish rules for naturalization, 
coin money, establish post-offices and post-roads, and other powers 
thereinafter named were intended for the general welfare. 

But another and fatal objection to this reading is, that it renders 
nugatory and useless all other grants of power contained in this sec- 
tion ; for, if " to provide for the common defense and general wel- 
fare" does not mean that the power is to be exercised in the manner 
poLQted out in the several paragraphs of section 8, then there is no 
limitation on the discretion of Congress as to how and when and to 
what extent it may go in providing for the general welfare of the 
United States. 

Again, and lastly on this head : When the people had the Constitu- 
tion under consideration to ratify or reject, objection was made to 



this clause in section 8, that it gave Congress unlimited power and 
discretion in providing for the general welfare. Mr. Madison met the 
objection in the follovring language, to be found in the fortieth num- 
ber of the Federalist : 

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded 
a very fierce attack against the Constitution on the language in which it is defined. 
It has been urged and echoed that the power " to lay " andcoUect taxes, duties, im- 
posts, and excises, to pay "the debts and provide for the common defense and gen- 
eral welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise 
every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or gen- 
eral welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these 
writers labor for objections than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no 
other enumeration or defixiition of the powers of Congress been found in th6 Con- 
stitution than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might 
have had some color for it ; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for ao 
awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A 
power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the 
course of descents or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed 
by the terms " to raise money for the general welfare." 

But what color can the objection have when a specification of the objects alluded 
to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer 
pause than a semicolon ? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be 
so expounded as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of 
the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning ; and shall 
the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained inthetr full extent, and the clear 
and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever ? For what purpose 
could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and aU others were 
meant to be included in the preceding general power ? 

Nothing is more natural or common than first to use a general phrase and then 
to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration 
of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have 
no other eff"ect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are re- 
duced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection, or on the 
authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing had not its ori- 
gin with the latter. 

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used 
by the convention is a copy from the Articles of Confederation. The objects of the 
Union among the States, as described in articles, are, "their common defense, 
security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." 

The terms of article 8 are still more identical. 'All charges of" war, and all 
other expenses, that shall be incurred " for the common defense, or general welfare, 
and " allowed by the United States in Congress shall be "defrayed out of a com- 
mon treasury," &.c. A similar language again occurs in article 9. Construe either 
of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new 
Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in aU cases 
whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly if, attaching 
themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which 
ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an imlimited power of provid- 
ing for the common defense and general wealfare ? 

I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have em- 
ployed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of 
against tlie convention. 

How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation. 



9 

But I will consider these words as containing a distinct grant of 
power. If that be true, then what follows ? Does it not follow that 
this power can only be exercised by Congress, and that it is taken 
from the States and from the people of the States ? Does it not fol- 
low that this power is an exclusive power ? Who can provide for the 
common defense except the United States through Congress ? No 
State can provide for the common defense. That one fact was the 
main reason that induced the States to form a Constitution; because 
each one was unable to protect itself, and they could not protect each 
other. I say, therefore, that if this be a substantive power it is an 
exclusive power, because, in the nature of our Government, it can only 
be exercised by the General Government. Then if it be an exclusive 
power, and the power to celebrate the Declaration of Independence is 
derivable from and is an incident to that power, it follows as an inevit- 
able, logical sequence that the power to celebrate the Declaration of 
Independence is taken from the States and from the people. 

Mr. President, that brings the question to its logical absurdity. To 
say that the people and the States cannot exercise the right of cele- 
brating the Declaration of Independence is simply absurd. But I say 
that it is not absurd, but it is strictly logical that, if the Congress 
of the United States can under this grant of power derive authority 
to appropriate money for that celebration, it must be only because it 
is one of the means necessary for the common defense and general 
welfare, and the United States alone can provide for the common de- 
fense and general welfare of the whole Union. Neither the States 
separately nor the people can exercise this power, and neither, there- 
fore, can exercise any power derivative from this power. And hence, 
the power to appropriate money for this celebration being derived 
from the power to promote the general weKare, neither States nor 
people can provide for this celebration. Hence we must see that the 
right to provide for this celebration is not one of the methods by 
which the power to provide for the general welfare is' to be used. 

But, sir, it is further said by some that the United States Govern- 
ment has the inherent power as a nation to celebrate the anniversary 
of its birthday. I propose very briefly to analyze that proposition. 
For the sake of the argument, and only that, I concede that the United 
States are a nation ; then the question arises how do they come to be 
a nation ? What has made them a nation ? They were not a nation 
before the adoption of the Federal Constitution. If they be a nation, 
then they are made so by the Constitution ; and if made so by the Con- 
stitution, I dare say there is no one, however liberal, federal, or radi- 
cal, who will maintain that they are any more a nation than they 
are so constituted by the Constitution itself. If that be true, we have 
to look to the Constitution to find the power which we as a nation 
can exercise in celebrating our Declaration of Independence. 



10 

Now, siTj what is this nation according to the Cooistitution ? "We 
have a judicial, an executive, and a legislative branch — three depart- 
ments that make up the nation. It is very evident that the executive 
is not the nation. It is equally clear that the judicial department is 
not the nation. It is equally clear that Congress is not the nation,. 
So, what has become of the nation ? Where is your nation that can 
appropriate money to celebrate the Declaration of Independence by- 
virtue of an inherent power ? Your nation has dwindled into the- 
Congress of the United States. The power you are seeking to exer- 
cise as a nation is finally to be sought for in the power to levy taxes, 
and collect money, and make appropriations, and the only depart- 
ment of the Government that can do these acts is Congress. It is 
suggested by my friend on the left [Mr. Eaton] that, if this bill 
should happen to be vetoed, where would be the inherent power of 
your nation ? Your nation grows smaller and smaller. The nation 
has dwindled not only into Congress but your nation is controlled by 
the veto power, and must get two-thirds of its number to concur 
before it can exercise an inherent right. And yet there is an inherent 
power in the nation to appropriate money to celebrate the Declara- 
tion of Independence ! So that those who seek for this power in the 
nation, after traveling round and round in following this illusion, 
finally come right back to the point whence they started ; and that. 
is the power of Congress to appropriate money for a celebration. 

But, sir, there is another class of interpreters of the Constitution- 
who find the power to pass this bill in the general powers granted to 
Congress to be exercised in our foreign relations. They admit that 
the powers which are granted to Congress to be exercised betweeh the- 
States and the citizens of the States are limited, but they assent that, 
when we look at the powers that relate to foreign governments, that 
establish relations between the United States and foreign countres, 
all the powers are unlimited ; and it is as if we stood upon the shore^ 
and looked out upon the boundless horizon with nothing to obstruct 
the view. 

In the first place I deny the proposition that this class of powers^ 
is unlimited. There are many things which we, as a Government, 
cannot do that other nations can. But, admit that those powers are 
unlimited, then what follows when we come to consider the manner 
in which those powers are to be exercised ? The exercise of those 
powers must have a reasonable intendment. They must be construed 
with reference to the objects for which they were granted. They^ 
were granted for the purpose of regulating the relations between the 
United States as a Government and the governments of foreign coun- 
tries. They were intended to establish relations between foreign gov- 
ernments and the Government of the United States. They were in- 
tended to secure something that would be beneficial and would bet 



11 

permanent. They were intended to be exercised according to law and 
in pursuance of law. Now, does this bill establish any relations be- 
tween the United States and any foreign country ? Is there anything 
secured to this Government in its relations to any other government 
by this bill ? Does it establish, affect, or abrogate a treaty ? Has it 
any relation to foreign governments ? Sir, the operation of this bill 
terminates in the centennial commission of finance, and when that 
is closed what will be left of this law ? When those who are drawn 
here by the courtesy of this Government ; when those who will be ex- 
haled from the great ocean of humanity by the burning zeal of this 
central sun in our solar system, shall gather and condense upon our 
shores and d^appear again like vapor, what will there be left of this 
legislation ? Any law ? Any relations established between this Gov- 
ernment and a foreign government ? No, sir. There will he nothing 
left but the empty vi sion of a gorgeous pageant. 

But, Mr. President, I have been considering the different grounds 
which are assumed by the friends of this bill when they are seeking 
for power upon which to found it. I now come to consider what I 
believe to be the true question involved in this case. I do not think 
that the question arises out of the power of Congress to provide for 
the general welfare, or from the power to regulate commerce, or from 
the power of Congress to establish foreign relations ; but in my opin- 
ion there is a clause in the Constitution which controls and forbids 
action by Congress on this bill. 

By referring to the legislation on this subject we find that this ex- 
hibition has not been gotten up to celebrate the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence. That is all a sham. The first act provides for " celebrat- 
ing the one hundredth anniversary of American Independence." 
How? "Why, "by holding an international exhibition of arts and 
manufactures, and products of the soil and mine." The centennial of 
our Independence is to be celebrated ; but it is to be celebrated by an 
exhibition of the products of the arts and the sciences. This fortunate- 
ly divests this question of all sentiment, of all patriotism. The centen- 
nial celebration of the Declaration of Independence is not even a 
secondary consideration. We are simply to exhibit to the world what 
we have accomplished in the arts and sciences. 

Now, sir, I invite the attention of the Senate to a consideration of 
the question, whether there is not a limitation in the Constitution on 
the power of Congress to appropriate money to patronize the arts and 
sciences by erecting halls at Philadelphia or elsewhere ? Has Con- 
gress the power to patronize the arts and sciences of foreign countries ? 
Can we do indirectly that which we cannot do directly ? Can we pro- 
mote the arts and sciences of the subjects and citizens of other coun- 
tries more than we can those of our own ? None will dare assert it. 
Then, sir, if that be true, I say that there is a direct and positive lim- 



12 

itation upon the power of Congress and of the tlnited States Govern- 
ment to patronize the arts and the sciences, or either, even to benefit 
the citizens of the United States, and that the limitation is contained 
in the eighth clause of the eighth section of the first article of the Con- 
stitution, which is in these "words : 

Congress shall have power to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by 
securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their re- 
spective writings and discoveries. 

No"w, if the power of Congress to promote the progress of science 
and 'the useful arts is limited by the Constitution, we have no au- 
thority to go beyond that limit. Has a limit been fixed ? The pro- 
vision is that Congress " may promote the progress of, science and 
the useful arts." This clause was inserted after the maturest consid- 
eration upon two or three clauses of this character that were intro- 
duced and submitted to the convention. 

On August 18, 1787, Mr. Madison submitted to the convention, 
among other propositions for its consideration and action, the fol- 
lowing : 

The power in Congress " to secure to literary authors their copyrights for a lim- 
ited time ; 

" To encourage by premiums and provisions the advancement of useful knowledge 
and discoveries ; 

" To establish seminaries for the promotion of literature and the arts and sci- 
ences." 

It will be observed that all these several propositions relate to the 
arts and sciences. 

The first was to secure copyrights to literary authors ; the second 
to encourage " useful knowledge and discoveries," which mean noth- 
ing else than the arts and sciences ; and the third to promote the arts 
and sciences. Thus we see that the question of promoting the arts 
and sciences in three diff'erent methods was considered and decided 
on by the convention. And what was their decision ? Was it to es- 
tablish seminaries for that purpose ? No, sir. Did they decide to 
give Congress power to erect magnificent halls for that object? Did 
they leave the power of Congress over this subject-matter unlimited, 
to do whatever in their discretion they might judge to be " for the gen- 
eral welfare ? " Far from it. We find two positive limitations. By 
the first they confine any action of Congress to the useful arts; and 
then by the second they restrict the power still further by prescrib- 
ing the manner and the only manner in which the progress of the use- 
ful arts and sciences can be promoted by Congress. They confined it 
to the power to secure to authors and inventors the exclusive rights 
to their writings and discoveries. And thirdly they still further re- 
stricted even this limited manner of exercising this power by saying, 
the exclusive right of authors and inventors should exist only for a 
"limited time." 

k 



13 

It is a rule of construction applicable to the Constitution that 
where a power is given and the exercise of that power is limited to a 
particular manner, Congress has no right to exercise it in any other 
manner. If then Congress is restricted to promoting the progress of 
science and the arts, first, to science and the useful arts, second, to 
securing to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their produc- 
tions by copyright and by patentright, and, third, to granting an ex- 
clusive right for a limited time only, then Congress has no right to 
patronize or promote science and the arts, that is, all arts, in the man- 
ner proposed by this bill. And what is an appropriation of $1,500,- 
000 to erect buildings in which to exhibit the products of science and 
all the arts, if it is not " to promote science and the arts ? " The 
power to make this appropriation of money already collected by tax- 
ation includes the power to tax for the same purpose. The power to 
make this one appropriation includes the power to levy an annual 
tax for this purpose. The right to erect buildings to exhibit products 
of art, carries with it the right to appropriate money from the pub- 
lic TreasTiry to keep the buildings open and maintain the expense of 
an annual exhibition. And thus we are drifting. Barrier after bar- 
rier is broken down, and power upon power is usurped. 

But, Mr. President, it is said that this bill is patriotic. We are just 
beginning to discover it, at the end of five years. It is said "the 
honor of the Government is at stake." When the Centennial Commis- 
sion, about two years ago, asked Congress to pass an act inviting for- 
eign countries to come, we did not think then the honor of the Gov- 
ernment was involved. Nothing then was said about the honor of the 
Government ; but, on the contrary, the honor of Congress at that time 
seemed to be somewhat involved, at least we thought so, and we took 
the precaution to put upon record at that time and for the third time 
the declaration, not only to the Centennial Commission but to the world, 
that we did not intend the Government should be responsible for a 
dollar of this exhibition. It was declared again, when, at the request 
of this commission. Congress authorized the President to issue his 
invitation to foreign citizens and subjects to be represented at this 
international exposition. 

Congress denied all liability of the Government again when it 
authorized the striking off of medals to be used a,t this exposition, 
because Congress then declared that the medals themselves should 
be paid for by the centennial board of finance without any expense 
to the Government. Yet some change seems to have come over the 
spirit of the dreams of Senators. Senator after Senator has risen to 
state that he has changed his mind on this subject. 

Mr. RANDOLPH. May I interrupt the Senator from Georgia ? 

Mr. NORWOOD. Certainly. 

Mr. RANDOLPH. By what authority does Congress award medals 



14 

and give them to those who have performed a meritorious or patriotic 
act? 

Mr. NORWOOD. I will answer the Senator by saying that I will 
not follow the Senator or the Senate into the doubtful field of pre- 
cedent to find authority upon which to base my action and my vote. 
I stand upon the Constitution and its plain letter, which is the lamp 
that is to guide my feet ; and if I do not find it there, I will not wan- 
der upon the uncertain limits of the Constitution, iuto the twilight 
of truth and error, to grope in seeking for a power that we may ex- 
ercise for an act which is, to say the least of it, doubtful legislation. 
Precedent after precedent, such as the Senator on my left has called 
my attention to, can be cited, for which there is no grant of power 
in the Federal Constitution. I do not seek for it; I do not justify 
them ; I will not fdUovr the ignis fatuus of legislative precedent which 
ever hovers upon the confines of the Constitution and beyond its con- 
fines, and over the bogs and quicksands that lie beyond, and where, 
when we venture, we must inevitably sink. Had I been a member of 
Congress when the appropriation was asked for to defray the ex- 
penses of attending the exposition at London, at Paris, and at Vienna, 
I should have refused my vote to those bills. And the reason is, as 
already stated, that the Constitution limits the power of Congress 
to promote science and the useful arts by the exercise of its power in 
a particular manner, and in that manner only. 

I have already shown that one of the three propositions submitted 
by Mr. Madison, and considered and rejected by the convention, was 
to give Congress the power to bestow premiums, which, of course, in- 
cludes medals. 

Mr. RANDOLPH. If the Senator will allow me, by what authority 
does Congress grant or did Congress grant pensions to the widows of 
soldiers ? 

Mr. NORWOOD. I have no objection to answering that question; 
but, as I said before, all these questions are aside from the issue that 
we are considering. I answer him by asking what right Congress has 
to raise an army ? By a power granted in the Constitution. Who 
constitute the jirmy ? Soldiers. Does it not necessarily follow that 
if we have the right to raise an army, and soldiers make the army, we 
have the power to provide for our soldiers ; and is not a pension one 
of the provisions for soldiers ? 

There is no use to dally upon questions of this character. The ques- 
tion is simply this ; it is nothing more and it is nothing less ; Shall we 
in construing the Constitution grasp at and usurp a power to be ex- 
ercised in promoting the arts and sciences which the convention had 
under consideration and expressly refused to incorporate into the Con- 
stitution ? More than that ; waiving the question of the consideration 
by the convention, waiving the light that is thrown upon the Consti- 



15 

tution by their deliberations, and taking.the Constitution in its plain 
letter as we read the English language, aiS men of common sense and 
men of liberal education enlightening that common sense, I say that 
language limits the power of Congress over the arts and sciences to 
the exercise of it in a particular way, and Congress cannot exercise 
that power in any other manner. 

But, Mr. President, returning from this diverson, I say the dignity 
and honor of Congress are more involved in this question than the 
honor of the United States. We have said four several times that the 
United States would not be responsible to the extent of a copper in 
carrying on this exhibition, and, after having denied to the Centen- 
nial Commission a dollar until last year, are we now to yield ? Are we 
to say to them that, notwithstanding we have incorporated into this 
bill the very language which we have used time and again before, we 
do not mean what we say ? 

For one, I am not willing to publish to the world that we have never 
intended what we said and that we do not mean what we say now. 
We are now surrendering, and in the very moment of surrender 
declaring that we will never surrender again. Our stout refusal and 
our surrender appropriately suggest a paraphrase of the language of 

Gloster— 

Was ever Congress in this humor woo'd? 
"Was ever Congress in this humor won ? 

From $500,000 given last year we now jump to three times that 
amount, and I put the prediction upon record, and I think that time 
will vindicate my judgment, that the next session of this Congress 
will witness an application to this body for as much or more than we 
ar^ now called upon to appropriate, to defray the expenses of this 
exhibition and " to protect the honor of the United States." 

How has the honor of the United States become involved in this 
matter, I would like to know ? I listened in vain for the chairman 
of the committee to explain. He said the honor of the Government 
is involved. Do we expect the governments of other countries to be 
here ? Do we expect the heads of governments to be here ? Does any 
gentleman here flatter himself that he will look into the faces of 
kings and emperors, of sultans, sultanas, and pashas ? They have 
not been invited, in the first place ; in the second place they will cer- 
tainly not come ; and, in the third place, those who are coming will 
come to exhibit their property in the form of products of art and man- 
ufactures ; and those who have not these things will not be here ex- 
cept as idle spectators, and they will pay their way. It is a matter 
of history that the expenses of this Government — and when I say 
Government I mean those who went to represent the Government at 
London, Paris, and Vienna — were not paid by those respective cities 
and governments. Our people paid their own way like true independ- 



16 

ent Americans. They paid their money, went where they pleased, ex- 
hibited their wares and their handiwork, and returned home with 
their premiums. So it will be with those who come from foreign 
countries here. They are coming here to exhibit their manufactures 
and to compete for premiums, and those who have none to exhibit will 
not come. How, then, is the honor of the country involved ? Is it 
because we have not made provision in the buildings for exhibiting 
their arts and their manufactures ? Before the invitation was ex- 
tended the governor of Pennsylvania notified the President that am- 
ple provision was made for the buildings, and if the buildings are not 
ample the honor of the United States is in no sense involved and 
cannot be compromised. 

But, Mr. President, I pass from this view of the subject to say a few 
words on the effect of legislation like this. I believe it will be for 
evil, and evil only. Its baleful influence will reach far into the fu- 
ture. It is, in my opinion, not consistent with the character of the 
American people ; it is not republican ; it is imperial ; it is a fungus 
growth, and not a healthy product of ths Constitution. I had always 
believed from my early youth that there was something in the mis- 
sion of the American people among the nations of the earth like that 
of the Jews, who were the chosen people of God. I believe our mis- 
sion is to level the mountains, to raise the plains, and to make smooth 
and straight the way; that we are the pioneers, the advance guard 
of human freedom. 

Already have our pickets, following the sun in his course, reached 
the eastern shores of China and Japan, and taken possession of the 
islands of the seas. With the banner of the cross in one hand and the 
flag of their country in the other, they are parting the jungle and 
straining forward to reach the benighted and the oppressed. Behind 
us the millions in the Old World are sleeping under the tyrant's spell. 
But they are lying in bivouac, and now and then, as the dawn draws 
nigh and sleep sits lighter on their eyelids, bright dreams of perfect 
freedom in a land of constitutional lawcojne to them "in visions of the 
night" and beckon them away ; and, quickened by the joyful longing, 
they start and wake and try to rise. If we will be true to our faith, to 
constitutional law, and hold up with steady hand our noble ensign, 
at the reveille of freedom they will rise in majestic order and follow 
the standard which we, in the New World, have raised and advanced 
on high. 

But, sir, why has our standard been thus advanced ? Why do a, 
hundred years their radiant wings expand around it? Why has 
America, during one century, so far surpassed the states of the Old 
World ? Are we not Englishmen by origin ? Are we not a composite 
people — English, Irish, Scotch, German, French ? Why then have we 
done more than all the mother states in the arts and sciences, in sub- 



17 

duing nature, destroying space, reclaiming the wilderness and desert, 
in missionary work, and, generally, in the great labor appointed to 
men and nations — the amelioration of the condition of mankind ? Is it 
accidental? No, sir; no. It is the result of American civilization, and 
this is due to the form and spirit of our Government, which is a gov- 
ernment of law. Complex in form, it is, nevertheless, easy and steady 
in its movement. Eightly administered, it is invisible to the citizen, 
and, like the atmosphere at rest, bears equally on all and oppresses none. 
It leaves the citizen free ; free as the casing air, to grow in independ- 
ence, to expand in manhood, and to stand alone. Were I to attempt to 
describe the character of an American in one word I would sum it up 
in self-reliance. Self-reliance is the spirit and soul of self-government. 
It is photographed in the Constitution. The people in that covenant 
said but two things : " Protect us against foreign foes and State against 
State, and leave us free ; let us alone." This spirit buxns in the very 
words which deny our right to pass this bill. For the people said to 
Congress, "All we require you to do to promote the arts and science is 
to protect the products of our brains and our hands against piracy 
and infringement, by copyright and patent-right. We ask no more 
and we intend you shall do no more ; for each and every power not 
herein delegated to you we expressly reserve to ourselves." 

It was self-reliance that nerved the few patriots at Mecklenburgh 
to issue the first declaration of American Independence. It heaved 
the tea into Boston Harbor. It was this that made the undaunted 
Moultrie reply to his despairing commander, " Colonel, Fll hold the 
fort." It gave as a rich legacy to American history the fame of Ser- 
geant Jasper, Daniel Boone, Lewis of Virginia, and a thousand like 
intrepid spirits, and it equipped the soul of Marion, the swamp-fox of 
the Ee volution, and made him an army in himself. Over the deserts, 
through the wildernesses, under burning suns whose kiss is contagion, 
and over Arctic fields of ice it has sustained the missionary who, in 
bearing his message from the Father that there is a rest, a home for 
the weary soul, tells also the oppressed of a refuge in a land on which 
no tyrant's foot for a hundred years has trod. But for this character- 
istic of Americans the Declaration of Independence, whose centennial 
marks the grandest epoch in time, save only the Savior's incarnation, 
could never have been possible. 

And, sir, shall we perpetuate this spirit or shall we destroy it ? If 
you would strike it down, pass this bill. Pass it, and teach the peo- 
ple that hencefoth they must lean upon the Government, and not the 
Government on them. Teach them that individual enterprise and 
self-reliance are no longer profitable. Teach the Fultons, the Morses, 
the Cyrus Fields that the highway of genius to fame and fortune no 
longer lies through want, privation, and the throes of thought in labor, 
but that it leads through the lobby to the Halls of Congress. Let the 
2 N 



18 

poor see that the sweat of their hrow, transformed into gold, is dealt 
out by the Government to the rich to make them richer. Establish 
fete-days and festivals at the public expense, as did the Roman con- 
suls when moving for empire, and soon the Lupercal will be followed 
by the Saturnalia. No, let us rather in this Centennial reconsecrate 
ourselves to law — to constitutional law — which is our only hope. As 
patriots — not as partisans— as sons who have received from our fathers 
a rich inheritance, as fathers whose offspring must suffer by our de- 
parture from law, let us not wander beyond the confines of the Con- 
stitution, or to its uncertain limit, to search for doubtful power to do 
a useless act. This legislation has that "increase of appetite" that 
grows by what it feeds on. If we yield now, where is the resolution, 
the will that can stay this pressure to reach the public Treasury ? 
Schemes, devices many and plausible, will meet you at every turn and 
press this poisoned chalice of "the general welfare " to your lips. 
And who that takes this step in the dark can refuse to take another ? 
But, should any friend of this measure ask whether I favor a cele- 
bration of the Declaration of American Independence, I tell him yes ; 
but the celebration I desire to see and for the world to witness is far 
different from the one he is seeking to provide. He would diligently 
search for what at best is a doubtful power, and exercise it to get 
at the public Treasury. He would lay his hands on the money of 
40,000,000 people without instructions as to how they wish the cele- 
bration conducted, and hand it over to a private corporation to be used 
and spent as a few privileged members may see fit. He would deliver 
over $1,500,000 of the public money to be spent for one reading of the 
Declaration of Independence and one oration at one spot. He would 
tax the people of Georgia $45,000 to be spent iu Philadelphia alone, 
for the benefit of the few, when not one in one hundred of the people 
of that State will be able to visit the scene where their money will be 
squandered. He would suppress an exhibition of the general joy by 
telling the people their money had already been taken to provide a 
vicarious demonstration in Philadelphia. He would substitute a pur- 
chased ceremony for a heart-felt, patriotic outburst. He would set 
the example of the Government assuming control of the celebration 
of the Fourth of July and discourage the accustomed annual celebra- 
tion by the people. 

Such is not my idea of what the scene should be on that memor- 
able day. I would have it a simultaneous movement of forty million 
people along the continent. It should begin as the gray dawn first 
lights up the cliffs of Maine and rise and roll with the sun in deafen- 
ing shout and tumult, until his parting smile, as if in sorrow at leaving 
a scene so happy, saddens andfades into the gloom of night. As the 
lark watching for the purpling East springs from its nest with merry 
note ; as the mocking-bird rises on buoyant wing and joyously revels 



19 

in tlie melody of its own song; so would I hear the children of this 
land, the future mothers and statesmen of America, as they rise on 
that morning, pour out their hearts in one universal carol. The hus- 
bandman should leave the field, the mechanic his bench, the lawyer 
his brief, the clergyman his study, the furnace and spindle hush their 
hum and clang, and busy commerce furl her sails. If American ora- 
tory has not lost its spell; if its silver tongue has not been enchanted 
into silence by the golden wand, the inspiration of the day and theme 
should kindle every habitable grove with burning words. '* Not in 
Jerusalem, nor in this mountain ;" not in Philadelphia, nor alone in 
Independence Hall, but wherever the flag of our country is given to 
the breeze, should Americans do honor to the day that ushered into 
being the infant Messiah of nations. Beneath our feet in the Celestial 
Empire, in the islands of all the seas, before the face of kings, the 
scattered sentinels and disciples of freedom on that day should tes- 
tify their faith by fitting sacrifice. 

Let this celebration be grander in moral sublimity than the celebra- 
tion of the Greeks on the banks of the classic Alpheus, where those 
who were lately foes met as friends and their wrongs were forgotten. 
Let it be more joyous than the song and dance of the Jewish hosts on 
the banks of the Red Sea. Let it be freer than the jubilees of Israel 
and prouder than the proudest triumphal march of Roman emperor. 
Thus, and only thus, can we give a fitting testimony to mankind of 
our joy over the declaration of our right to be free and of our admira- 
tion and love for the heroes by whose sacrificial blood our freedom 
was secured and constitutional government established and main- 
tained. 



i_±DKHKY Uh CONGRESS 



019 930 487 2 



Conservation Resources 
Lig-Free® Type I 
Ph 8.5, Buffered 



